Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Defending the Irish airspace

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts



  • The U.S. Army is preparing to acquire 144 Interim Maneuver-Short-Range Air Defense systems (IM-SHORAD) on the Stryker vehicle platform.

    In a recent notice posted on the Federal Business Opportunities website, the service asked industry proposals in regards to an ability to deliver 144 IM-SHORAD systems with deliveries beginning in the fiscal year 2020 and final deliveries in 2024.
    https://defence-blog.com/army/u-s-ar...d-systems.html

    Image is based on the Leonardo offering, which is based around Stinger missiles and Rada AESA radars:
    https://www.leonardodrs.com/news-and...ad-prototypes/

    Also includes a "soft kill" capability.

    Interesting option and seems to make a lot of sense.
    Last edited by pym; 17 February 2019, 20:41.

    Comment


    • Dublin Airport flights suspended due to drone

      Comment


      • Another example of MANPAD mounting vehicles that I imagine wouldn't be hugely expensive:
        https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/mbda...ight-vehicles/

        Comment


        • Mistral has a max range of 6.5km compared to BOILDE’s 9km

          Think the RBS70 Mk1 was 7km

          Comment


          • Originally posted by DeV View Post
            Mistral has a max range of 6.5km compared to BOILDE’s 9km

            Think the RBS70 Mk1 was 7km
            RBS 70 is a beam rider. Mistral, on the other hand is infa red, and thus, much more useful in low visibility. No point having longer range if you can't see the target.
            For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by na grohmitÃ* View Post
              RBS 70 is a beam rider. Mistral, on the other hand is infa red, and thus, much more useful in low visibility. No point having longer range if you can't see the target.
              Another advantage for Mistral is it is fire and forget, unlike current RBS 70 guidance which requires operator input all the way to impact.

              Comment


              • Regarding visibility in bad weather/darkness, an RBS 70 operator is cued remotely from the radar and finds the target through a thermal imager.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Jetjock View Post
                  Regarding visibility in bad weather/darkness, an RBS 70 operator is cued remotely from the radar and finds the target through a thermal imager.
                  But still has to follow the missile to target. Meanwhile, other targets are inbound....
                  For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                  Comment


                  • Both the RBS70 and Mistral have advantages and disadvantages.

                    The Mistral is a simple IR seeker which while "Fire & forget" first requires the operator to visually acquire the target and get a IR lock. This is normally the hot exhaust of a gas turbine. This means for most head-on situations it does not work well. Once a lock is achieved then "Fire" but not forget because a 2nd or 3rd missile might be required as the IR sensor is a simple IR sensor and can be defeated by flares. It does not have a IIR sensor like many of the current generation of AAM which generate a IR picture rather than just seeking a hot spot.

                    The RBS70 can be cued by radar but normally the target too has to be acquired visually. The laser designation is then used to mark the target and the missile fired. In is simplest form an operator then has to keep the target in sight until the missile destroys the target. It has similar limitation in low light due to fog and smoke but has the major advantage that it cannot be jammed by flares and other typical IR jammers.

                    Both systems can be integrated into more complex AAD systems which have costs which put them well out of the reach of the DF today.

                    If the target is a "civil" drone then neither are suitable due to the targets size and lack of heat signature, here some electronic defence system is needed and is what was seen deployed at Gatwick. An alternative for such devices would also be HEL but they too carry a large initial price tag.

                    Comment


                    • Modern missiles also home in on the heat given off by the aircraft's (fast mover) passage through the air, which is one of the homing cues for missiles fired from a frontal aspect, such as current models of the Sidewinder. Incidentally, the RAF anti-aircraft people loved to "target" the Harrier in training as it's fan (the blade disc on the front of the engine) gave wonderful radar reflectivity from the big air intakes, so a defending missile operator could "see" it clearly on radar. The upside for the Harrier was that it's exhaust was one of the coldest of all combat aircraft as it's nozzles mixed hot and cold air under the belly so it was very hard to gain an IR lock on it from behind. As for drones, I'd guess that drone detection is based on detecting the visual and possible radar reflectivity of their multiple blades, as well as thermal or IR seeking.

                      Comment


                      • https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.rte.ie/amp/1031223/

                        Comment


                        • US Navy orders 78 new F18 Super Hornets for $4,040m, that is a flyaway unit price of $52m each: if Finland gets a similar price then the JAS39 will have it hard.

                          https://news.usni.org/2019/03/21/42021

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                            US Navy orders 78 new F18 Super Hornets for $4,040m, that is a flyaway unit price of $52m each: if Finland gets a similar price then the JAS39 will have it hard.

                            https://news.usni.org/2019/03/21/42021
                            I'd take that price with a large pinch of salt - US procurement costs are split between the price they pay to (in this case) Boeing, and another, seperate pile called Government Furnished Equipment, which in the case of fighters usually means tiny little ancillaries like engines, weapons, ejector seats, and sometimes things like radars that they buy from other manufacturers.

                            $52m might be the money paid to Boeing at the factory gate, but it's nothing like the cost of a fully operational F/A-18F .

                            It's not just initial purchase costs - the Canadians worked out that the purchase cost was less than 25% of the through-life cost over a 30 year service period - the Gripen is relatively cheap to fly, but if the Finns are considering the EA-18 Growler then the F/A-18 would make a huge amount of sense in terms of training, logistics, technical support, all of which, with mixed-type fleets, are money pits.

                            The F/A-18 makes sense from a future-proofing angle as well - while it's in US service it will have ready made, OTS upgrades available till 2045 or so, that may not be the case with Gripen.

                            Super Hornet undoubtedly costs more than Gripen, but it delivers a lot more as well....

                            It's a hugely complex question, both aircraft types have significant advantages as well as negatives compared to the other.

                            Comment


                            • The GFE thing originated in WW2 as a tax avoidance / clever accounting measure because mass producers like Grumman and Boeing wanted it both ways. Build aircraft for the Government but don't get stung for taxes on that build. If a foreigner ordered an aircraft, they paid for one complete aircraft, supplied as a ready to fly aircraft in a crate and paid export taxes on it. When Uncle Sam ordered a fighter, he paid Grumman for the hull and wings and "supplied" the engine, guns, instruments, tyres, all the nuts and bolts....in fact, every single individual part that Grumman didn't make. In reality, Grumman built the fighter and dealt with the suppliers directly and then billed the Government and it lowered their tax bill and their costs were slashed by fobbing them off on the suppliers. It had more to do with tax efficiency and cost cutting than outright loyalty to the Government, especially if a buyer didnt complete the deal or aircraft were lost at sea when shipped or remained undelivered due to war events. Grumman didnt take the hit, the Government did.............These days, no-one pays or expects to pay full dollar price on any aircraft or tank or gun and the manufacturer understands that so he will get his fat in the after sales service. Airlines tend to get better deals if they order early, pay more up front per hull and buy as much standardised aircraft as possible. Militaries tend to buy small amounts, customise them and then pay through the nose for after sales service. Which is why, when militaries go shopping, they should send in hard-nosed merchandisers instead of starry-eyed soldiers, who usually get taken for a ride with a few baubles. If you want an education on military bribe scandals, look up the Lockheed "payola" scandal or some of the shady deals on Britain's Al Yamamah deal with the Saudis.

                              Comment


                              • I have heard of Blue-on-blue but this is taking it a bit far.

                                https://defence-blog.com/news/nether...-exercise.html

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X